Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Flesh, Castration, and Unbridled Capitalism"
From the always-entertaining Columbia Spectator, a dose of capitalism-is-responsible-for-all-evil. On today's slate: speciesism:
Distorted notions of capitalism have been the impetus for our complete apathy towards the issue of animal rights. We see it as meat, not flesh; we see it as Donald Duck, not the beakless animal that died from noise distress and claustrophobia; we see it as just another meal, not the senseless murder of a real, living creature. What is essentially wrong about this is that we’ve allowed capitalism to turn a blind eye to moral and ethical considerations, and it has hit the ground running for profit.
The knowledge that he is being manipulated by Disney and the robber barons hasn't quite managed to turn the author vegetarian, though:
There was once a time when I could casually drive my fork into one of John Jay’s steaks and then slice it swiftly with my knife—without wincing. I haven’t become a vegetarian, but my relationship with the steak in front of me has changed greatly within the last month. I eat it with a strong subconscious sense of awareness. Those cows have suffered for us! They’ve sacrificed their lives!
From my lofty vantage point as an old, wise 26-year-old, I note the unsurprising tagline:
The author is a Columbia College first-year.
Episiarch|10.19.07 @ 1:07PM|#
I eat it with a strong subconscious sense of
awareness.
Fucking priceless. Were we all this stupid (in our own ways) at
this age? Probably not this stupid.
Russ 2000|10.19.07 @ 1:09PM|#
I eat it with a strong subconscious sense of awareness.
Those cows have suffered for us! They've sacrificed their
lives!
That's most of the point for saying grace before a meal, something
almost every person except the asshole writer seems to understand
(if not practice).
|10.19.07 @ 1:10PM|#
There are more humane and less humane ways of raising animals
for meat. The more humane ways tend to produce a better tasting and
probably more nutritious product.
Just a thought on how you might choose your food.
X
|10.19.07 @ 1:10PM|#
I bet he's trying to get into some vegan chicks pants. A letter
like this works better than astroglide!
Next week I bet he'll be protesting Israel for a similar
reason!!
|10.19.07 @ 1:13PM|#
The author is a Columbia College first-year.
So by Christmas break they'll be a full-fleged veggie, by summer a
vegan, by the following fall eating only french fries and by
graduation back to shoving delicious animals down their throat
again wondering why they spent all that time not eating meat.
Pat|10.19.07 @ 1:14PM|#
I think I read that. It was right before the women's sexual liberation article written by first-year Carrie Bradshaw wannabe.
|10.19.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Whenever I eat meat, I work hard to remember that an animal died to feed me. Knowing that I'm at the top of the food chain makes it taste better.
sr2|10.19.07 @ 1:15PM|#
". I eat it with a strong subconscious sense of
awareness."
So, basically, while he's eating he's aware that he's aware on a
level of which he's unaware?
Does that sentence say ANYTHING?
|10.19.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Do libertarians really want to play the "look at what college freshman say" game?
|10.19.07 @ 1:15PM|#
I eat it with a strong subconscious sense of
awareness.
Uh, doesn't that mean it's no longer subconscious?
|10.19.07 @ 1:16PM|#
"Flesh, Castration, and Unbridled Capitalism"
The Swans got back together? Cool!
|10.19.07 @ 1:16PM|#
The more humane ways tend to produce a better tasting and probably more nutritious product.
It certainly produces a more expensive product. Free range turkeys
are more than ten times as expensive as their conventional
counterparts. Are we to move back to a society where meat is only
for the rich? I certainly can't imagine many blue-collar families
plopping down $110 for a single thanksgiving turkey.
|10.19.07 @ 1:17PM|#
If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
sr2|10.19.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Most unintentionally funny comment FTW:
"Just a thought on how you might choose your
food."
*emphasis added...think about it for a second.
|10.19.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Is "first-year" the new "freshman"?
That's what I thought - and I bet it comes from not wanting to
appear sexist or ageist. Or speciest.
|10.19.07 @ 1:18PM|#
If anything, I'd say that Disney had the exact opposite effect,
vastly over-animizing practically every animal character they've
ever drawn, and strengthening this "animals are just small furry
people" viewpoint.
A distinction must be drawn between deer hunting in the Bambi
universe, and hunting in the real world.
Of course, this sort of thing was old when Aesop was a kid, so I
can't put the blame entirely on them.
|10.19.07 @ 1:19PM|#
No, no, the sense of awareness is subconscious.
The awareness is conscious.
He's aware of the suffering of the animal, but he's not aware that
he's aware of that. Although he does have a feeling that he's aware
of it.
Wow, that's a good one.
Anyway, let's hope he doesn't read the Fountainhead.
|10.19.07 @ 1:20PM|#
It certainly produces a more expensive product. Free range
turkeys are more than ten times as expensive as their conventional
counterparts. Are we to move back to a society where meat is only
for the rich? I certainly can't imagine many blue-collar families
plopping down $110 for a single thanksgiving turkey.
Well, clearly we need to call on the government to create a free
range turkey program for the poor.
|10.19.07 @ 1:21PM|#
And what about vegetable rights?
Did the author devour that defenseless brocolli without a twinge of
consceince? Did the potato ask to be dug up and baked? How did the
carrots feel about being diced and steamed?
Sounds like Kingdomism to me!
|10.19.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Here's the ultimate in loony-left (including speciesism)
indoctrinate: "Lessons in Isms coming soon to B.C. schools"
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=b271185b-536b-487e-9fae-ef89cee75ea3&k=77964
|10.19.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Free-range turkeys are not 10x the price of normal
turkeys.
A free range turkey from Whole Foods the week before Thanksgiven
might be 10x the price of a regular turkey in March, but that's
hardly the same thing.
Also, much of the extra price - though not all - is the consequence
of the product being marketed as a specialty item, and of the
relatively small supply, both of which could be expected to
decrease if free-range turkey raising became the industry norm.
|10.19.07 @ 1:31PM|#
"Pin the animal down, take a knife and slit the scrotum, exposing the testicles. You then grab each testicle in turn and pull on it, breaking the cord that attaches it; on older animals it may be necessary to cut the cord."
Better than the old fashioned method of tying a rubber band around
'em and waiting two weeks for the suckers to drop off.
Why have we attached wayward connotations of "hippiness" to anything related to animal rights? We have left it, at the moment, to the animal rights activists. They are the only ones blowing whistles, and I must confess, committing acts of public nuisance in sheer frustration.
It could be that groups like ALF and PETA aren't just calling for
more humane farming methods, they are demonstrating the evils of
farming as a way to prevent people from eating animals and their
byproducts. For groups like PETA, ending the practice of de-beaking
chickens isn't enough, they want every last chicken to live out its
days in natural surroundings, finally succumbing to old age, never
to be a future meal.
Dee|10.19.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Dammit Katherine, any post that is even remotely critical of anything to the left needs to be cleared by joe first. You should know this by now.
|10.19.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Yes, the fact that I noticed it totally makes the letters to the
editor section of a college newspaper an essential subject of
critical analysis.
That's totally how this works, Dee.
Syloson of Samos|10.19.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Leaving aside issues like "do rights exist?", from whence do animals get rights? Human beings presumably. Why? Probably for aesthetic reasons as well as our tendency to anthropomorphize.
|10.19.07 @ 1:36PM|#
I bet he's trying to get into some vegan chicks pants. A
letter like this works better than astroglide!
Not necessarily. Vegan Chick will probably read it out loud to her
girlfriend over a cup of fair-trade, and have a good laugh at the
loser's expense.
|10.19.07 @ 1:39PM|#
There are more humane and less humane ways of raising animals for meat. The more humane ways tend to produce a better tasting and probably more nutritious product.
You are right. If you shoot a deer when he is not on the run, the
adrenaline doesn't sour the meat.
Seriously, I understand what you are saying though I have to only
partially agree. I like the flavor of "grass fed" beef, which right
now is mostly free-range insofar as a range bounded by barbed wire
is "free". I purchase cage-free eggs out of a compassion streak for
the birds, not because they taste any better. Oddly enough, the
cage-free eggs we purchase proudly proclaim that the birds are fed
"an all-vegetarian diet" which clearly demonstrates that while the
birds are "cage-free" they are decidedly not "free-range" as
chickens are omnivores and will clear a yard of insects like it's
nobody's business.
|10.19.07 @ 1:41PM|#
The capitalist's party weekend:
1) dress down, go to trendy protest, pretend to be leftist
2) meet cute but dumb Columbia first-year chick
3) go back to her place and hump like adolescent minks
4) Leave a fifty dollar bill on her pillow and get back to the real
world
Syloson of Samos|10.19.07 @ 1:41PM|#
joe,
So, is your point that because some* libertarians were a
little over the top regarding Ayn Rand in their youth that this
somehow makes the criticism of this article unfair? If so, that
doesn't make any sense.
*Disclaimer: I've never grooved to Ayn Rand.
JN|10.19.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Also, much of the extra price - though not all - is the
consequence of the product being marketed as a specialty item, and
of the relatively small supply, both of which could be expected to
decrease if free-range turkey raising became the industry
norm.
Remember the time Joe explained supply and demand to us...
That was awesome.
Paul|10.19.07 @ 1:45PM|#
We see it as meat, not flesh; we see it as Donald Duck, not
the beakless animal that died from noise distress and
claustrophobia; we see it as just another meal, not the senseless
murder of a real, living creature.
Wow. What does this rhetoric sound like? I'm trying to put my
finger on it. Could it be the language of the anti-abortion
activist? I wonder what the author's views on that are. Hmmm.
|10.19.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Googled some turkey prices. Found a nice table from 2004. Fresh
turkey prices, non-free-range from .99 to 1.89. Free-range from
2.69. to 2.89. That's not 10x. Frozen from .69 to .89 with and
outlier of .39 for an 1lb frozen turkey. I don't want an 18lb
turkey.
So, yeah, it costs more. Not 10x. We all knew that.
I don't know what's "funny" about "choose" -- intnetional or
unintentional. You guys seem to like the notion of choice. I guess
that only if YOU bring it up.
X
|10.19.07 @ 1:46PM|#
And what about vegetable rights?
Did the author devour that defenseless brocolli without a twinge of
consceince? Did the potato ask to be dug up and baked? How did the
carrots feel about being diced and steamed?
Sounds like Kingdomism to me!
And if you need convinced about the immorality of Veganism, go
here.
GILMORE|10.19.07 @ 1:47PM|#
This is so common there should be a name for it.
Im constantly explaining to people that the main characteristic of
liberal weep and moaners is not their unique behavior, but the
constant need to publically decry our 'wasteful behavior', save the
environment, *feel bad* about eating meat (go ahead and indulge
though, because you DESERVE it BECAUSE you are morally purified
through your bad-feelingness.
It's sort of a way of purifying themselves of their guilt. I feel
bad! I have a conscience! Which apparently is more important than
actually... not participating in the 'system' they decry?
You have no idea how many times I've seen kids watching MTV and
going, "man, this shit is so superficial...the MSM is just trying
to 'invent' cool... you know, chomsky said..."...
...and of course, they never actually turn the TV *off*
Max|10.19.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Why not just buy halal or kosher if one is so
concerned with humanely treated and butchered animals?
Meat tastes yummy.
|10.19.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Having been a dunderheaded Columbia freshman myself once upon a
time, I feel a small level of sympathy for the muddled, PC lefty
idiot who wrote this. But my sympathy ends when the student tells
out-and-out lies. He claims to: casually drive my fork into one
of John Jay's steaks and then slice it swiftly with my
knife
I've eaten at the Jay cafeteria. There wasn't a piece of meat ever
served in that place into which one could "casually" drive a fork
or "swiftly" slice it. What kind of yokels does this kid take us
for?
|10.19.07 @ 1:53PM|#
joe is entirely correct. We're goofing on the literary stylings
of a college freshman.
What next, a grammatical critique skeezybreezy's FaceBook page?
|10.19.07 @ 1:54PM|#
"I eat it with a strong subconscious sense of awareness. Those
cows have suffered for us! They've sacrificed their lives!"
I am frankly kind of honored by the sentiment. Who am I to deny
cows the pleasure of their generosity? This guy is defeinitely
trying to get in some hippy chicks pants. If so, more power to him.
Anyone who hasn't said something stupid in hopes of getting some
woman to bed is either gay or lying. I hope that is the case and
this guy really isn't this stupid.
|10.19.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Do libertarians partisan Democratic
cheerleaders really want to play the "look at what college
freshman say" game?
It's called a mirror, joe.
|10.19.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Now if the oh-so-sensitive writer would show the same empathy for the plants that were senselessly slaughtered to feed his voracious maw, he'd effing starve to death and we'd be spared this shite.
|10.19.07 @ 1:58PM|#
I didn't realize no one ate meat until there were
capitalists.
I get really good meat at a farmer's market up the street (and
after October, they'll deliver it once a month). Ground beef AND
pre-made patties $3 per pound. Chicken $4.50 per pound. Best bacon
ever, $4 per pound. I got pork chops once, and forget what I paid,
but it wasn't extravagant, either. It's less than what I pay at the
grocery store.
|10.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
freeradical,
Obviously, you are not familiar with Adam Smith's The Wealth of
Muttons, which introduced the concept of the "meat-eating
hand."
|10.19.07 @ 2:06PM|#
A free range turkey from Whole Foods the week before
Thanksgiven might be 10x the price of a regular turkey in March,
but that's hardly the same thing.
joe, if you knew how capitalism works, you'd realize that turkeys
get much cheaper as Thanksgiving approaches, as
ranchers ramp up supply, depressing prices, and stores offer
turkeys as loss leaders to drive traffic into their stores so they
can overcharge (if you're a lefty) make their profit
on other items.
Though maybe a lefty place like Whole Foods manages to screw up
this dynamic and charge higher prices when everyone else is
lowering theirs.
Franklin Harris|10.19.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"Flesh, Castration, and Unbridled Capitalism"
I prefer "Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash."
|10.19.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Those asshole capitalist cavemen and their Mastodon-murdering ways! I would say that this problem shows how poor animals are another victim of the male-o-centric maleocracy.
Roberto Leibman|10.19.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Did the author devour that defenseless brocolli without a
twinge of consceince? Did the potato ask to be dug up and baked?
How did the carrots feel about being diced and steamed?
Sounds like Kingdomism to me!
--
Yeah, that's why I'm a Breatharian
|10.19.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Ms. Mangu-Ward, while attempting to take a cheap shot at
liberals, has inadvertantly reinforced the stereotype of the
anti-intellectual, closed-minded conservative. And she's only
26?
Even if you don't like people who question your worldview, at least
appreciate that Vesal Yazdi for an eighteen year-old at least shows
an aptitude for writing and a willingness to consider points of
view beyond the status quo.
He's got plenty of time to become old, jaded, and self-absorbed, so
relax.
dhex|10.19.07 @ 2:14PM|#
ok wait why are you guys picking on college freshmen now?
there weren't any rich actresses running around with mao tatoos
this week or whatever?
|10.19.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Though maybe a lefty place like Whole Foods manages to screw
up this dynamic and charge higher prices when everyone else is
lowering theirs.
Whole Foods is a magnificent scam to turn guilt into money. I wish
I had thought of it.
dhex|10.19.07 @ 2:16PM|#
also dan i feel compelled to ask what your day job actually is. in fact, were i in a phd program, i would consider using you as a case study/longform interview chapter on a kind of online mechanism i call "symbiotic trolling". (urkobold would be a whole chapter, as well as dave w. but on different topics)
|10.19.07 @ 2:17PM|#
freeradical,
I didn't realize no one ate meat until there were
capitalists.
I was thinking the same thing. When are we supposed to think
capitalism began? Didn't the Romans show an apathy about animal
rights, what with all those massacres and animal fights in the
arena? Were the Romans capitalists?
I actually think the issue of whether we should eat animals or
"exploit" them is interesting, but it doesn't have much to do with
"capitalism," which has become a sort of catchword for "parts of
modern society I don't care for."
If anything, the division of labor resulting from "capitalism" has
put the distance between people and the agricultural process that
makes worrying about animal rights possible.
iih|10.19.07 @ 2:21PM|#
In Ishmael, Daniel Quinn provides a very good reason for the need to be non-vegetarian from an existential point of view. I loved that book.
|10.19.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Yes, freshmen are called first-years at the Ivy League schools these days. In my experience most people still say "freshmen."
VM|10.19.07 @ 2:30PM|#
de stijl | October 19, 2007, 1:10pm | #
Is "first-year" the new "freshman"?
if by "new" you mean at least 20 years old: that was accepted
nomenclature when I started college in the late 80s...
And Warren - sadly you missed the steak that was offered you the
other day...
|10.19.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Little-known fact: Back when first-year college students ate meat, they were called, "fleshmen".
|10.19.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Do libertarians really want to play the "look at what
college freshman say" game?
Is there a better time to do it than Friday Fun Day?
|10.19.07 @ 2:39PM|#
And Warren - sadly you missed the steak that was offered you
the other day...
What? Steak!? Goddamnit.
GILMORE|10.19.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Ms. Mangu-Ward, while attempting to take a cheap shot at
liberals,
Cheap shot? Are you kidding?
This kid was hanging his ass in the breeze. To the weep and
moaners, all shots are cheap shots. They always have the moral high
ground...
He's got plenty of time to become old, jaded, and
self-absorbed, so relax.
He's already young, jaded, and self absorbed... so whats your
point?
|10.19.07 @ 2:42PM|#
One of my favorite bumper stickers:
I ♥ ANIMALS
they're delicious
Save the Whales!
Collect the whole set.
|10.19.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Something tells me the author probably wouldn't apreciate this
clip from the dada masterpice that is Freddy Got
Fingered.
J sub D,
Back in the day it was;
Save the Soviet Jews!
Collect them!
Trade them with your friends!
|10.19.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I accept that the pure libertarian viewpoint necessitates
opposition to animal welfare and animal rights concerns (which,
btw, are different though overlapping issues).
However, from a practical, vote-winning standpoint, absolutism on
this position is one of the things that keeps libertarians exactly
where they are now -- unelectable.
Principled opposition is one thing; sneering, gloating and
intellectual dishonesty ("broccoli") just show how mean-spirited
the movement can be.
In anticipation of the inevitable invocation of the H&R
Drinking Game: Congratulations on your cleverly-thought-out system
whereby you can avoid engaging honest criticism of the practical
shortfalls of libertariansism.
H&R could, of course, choose to not comment on these sorts of
things, but that restraint is noticeably lacking here.
Oh, and Katherine: Look, over there, the belgians are about to tax
outdoor grills.
Episiarch|10.19.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Congratulations on your cleverly-thought-out system whereby
you can avoid engaging honest criticism of the practical shortfalls
of libertariansism.
Drink! You might find it easier to chug if you take that stick out
of your ass, dude.
|10.19.07 @ 2:50PM|#
I was thinking the same thing. When are we supposed to think
capitalism began?
An australopithecenes offering carrion in exchange for
sexual favors?
|10.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"at least shows an aptitude for writing"
wtf
It's a fine example of College Student Ramblomatic. It features
lines cribbed from The Smiths, phrasing heard on late-night
television, and regurgitated crap from a hundred poorly-written
sources.
Someone needs to take that kid's adverbs away. Two in one sentence
('casually'... 'swiftly')? That's crap, and you don't have to be
old and jaded to know it. William Strunk would have a field day. Or
a heart attack.
|10.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#
My favorite line ever from a video game was the Swedish merc
(voiced by Peter Stormare, btw) in Mercenaries who said
about some starchy dude:
The stick up his ass has a stick up its ass.
|10.19.07 @ 2:56PM|#
"Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash."
Great name for bar with a very, umm, particular clientele.
|10.19.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Principled opposition is one thing; sneering, gloating and
intellectual dishonesty ("broccoli") just show how mean-spirited
the movement can be.
Hey folks, we're supposed to be serious, ignore and forgive others
follies. Fun, humor, satire, parody, puns and mockery are hereby
verboten on this site. Tonio, will we be taken seriously now?
iih|10.19.07 @ 3:00PM|#
It is a given (certainly in libertarianism) that no person has
the right to take the life of another unless it is an act of self
defense or protection of private property. Why not apply the same
principle for animals? What have (most animals, especially
domesticated ones) done to us to take their lives?
(One) Answer: Well, we should be honest and ask the same question
for fish, squid, plants, and even beans. Then we are left with
almost nothing to eat.
One criteria that was suggested is to ask whether an organism has a
nervous system or not. If it does, then we probably have no right
to violate their "person" and if not, we do. I do not know if I buy
that argument.
Again, in Ishmael, a very
good argument for the necessity of "carnivorism" is provided.
It is a state of nature for us humans to be carnivorous, but we
as humans should also accept the fact that we will be prayed on
every now and then.
SPD|10.19.07 @ 3:04PM|#
we will be prayed on every now and then
So are carpets in a mosque.
(Sorry, couldn't resist the typo!)
Fluffy|10.19.07 @ 3:05PM|#
The broccoli line isn't intellectually dishonest in the
least.
If you're going to argue that human beings have moral obligations
to entities other than other human beings, you have to be prepared
to deal with the reductio where people start to ask about
earthworms, mosquitos, and plants. Sorry.
And Dan, it's not anti-intellectual to mock the juvenilia of some
future accountant. As a general rule, if you take the time to sit
down to write something in college and it comes out as this
maudlin, threadbare, semi-plagiarised nonsense, the odds that you
are an "intellectual" are quite slim. Reading this is like
listening to some bubbleheaded communications major tell you about
the screenplay she's writing or the independent documentary she
wants to make. Vanity publishers are sending this kid junk email
about how he can "raise public awareness via self-publishing" as we
speak.
|10.19.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Since KMW's post is essentially the same as one she did last
week I can just cut and paste my reply to that one here:
"MW has great fun poking at those strange oddballs that believe in
something strongly and talking about it a lot (ethical eaters of
various stripes) while writing for a magazine that caters to a
group that most people who do not belong to it also see as strange
extremist speech-giving oddballs."
|10.19.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Drink! You might find it easier to chug if you take that
stick out of your ass, dude.
Thanks for both proving me right, and for the good laugh. Always
amusing when someone here accuses anyone else of having no sense of
humor.
|10.19.07 @ 3:12PM|#
I accept that the pure libertarian viewpoint necessitates opposition to animal welfare and animal rights concerns (which, btw, are different though overlapping issues).
You are correct that "animal rights" are a completely different set
of issues than "animal welfare", the former being pretty complex
but predicated on the question, "do we have the right to own
animals of another species?"
Leaving aside animal rights, the "pure libertarian viewpoint" only
necessitates opposition to animal welfare that is coerced.
Libertarians by and large should support the (presently niche)
markets of "free-range", "cage-free" and "humanely produced". What
we don't support is calls for regulating other options out of the
market. If enough people want to feel good about eating a chicken
that was raised in an open pasture then perhaps one day it will no
longer be a "niche" market but instead will be the norm, but the
market (consumers) should decide that, not the body governing the
people.
SPD|10.19.07 @ 3:16PM|#
In this student's defense, I wrote some particularly
embarrassing drivel in my formative years as well. College at the
height of the PC era practically demanded it.
That said, I am not unaware of or insensitive to the suffering of
animals that become the food I eat.
SPD|10.19.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Kwix,
Well said. A well-informed community of consumers can do more to
effect change through their buying choices than some
arbitrarily-constructed government body.
ed|10.19.07 @ 3:19PM|#
I really don't want to know the chickens.
I prefer to believe they hatch already frozen in shrink wrap.
|10.19.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Articles like this deserve an accompanying MP3 laugh track. Where is capitalist innovation when we really need it?
|10.19.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Fluffy:
The broccoli line isn't intellectually dishonest in the
least.
Bullshit.
If you're going to argue that human beings have moral
obligations to entities other than other human beings, you have to
be prepared to deal with the reductio where people start to ask
about earthworms, mosquitos, and plants. Sorry.
This is a big and ongoing debate within the ethical-eating
community. That's why there are vegetarians, vegans, fruititarians,
and people who are off-the-scale.
However, this line of reasoning is often used to try to divert the
debate from the real and tangible suffering of mammals raised for
food. Nice try.
|10.19.07 @ 3:34PM|#
joe sez: Anyway, let's hope he doesn't read the
Fountainhead.
Apparently joe doesn't know how hot co-eds get hearing about
Objectivist epistemology.
|10.19.07 @ 3:35PM|#
joe sez: Anyway, let's hope he doesn't read the
Fountainhead.
Or, alternatively, you can lead a first year to the Fountainhead,
but you can't make him think?
Minion of URKOBOLD|10.19.07 @ 3:36PM|#
In anticipation of the inevitable invocation of the
H&R Drinking Game
ACTUALLY WE ARE STARTING A NEW GAME.
"WRAP CUTE WOODLAND CREATURE IN PLASTIC AND SET ON FIRE TO MAKE
ENVIRONMENTAL MARTYR"
AND THEN WE SHALL EAT ITS WARM CARCASS AND TENDER FLESH.
WE SHALL MAKE AN ADDENDUM, AS WELL:
MEAT SHALL HENCEFORTH BE A GARNISH FOR MEAT.
Fluffy|10.19.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Tonio, if there is "a big and ongoing debate within the
ethical-eating community", then it's not a diversion to talk about
it.
And it can't possibly be intellectually dishonest to throw it in
your face until that big and ongoing debate ends.
I have a pretty straightforward ethical position: that ethics is
the process of determining the proper relationships between human
beings. All other species are outside the realm of ethics.
That means that, relative to my position, anyone who argues that
non-humans have rights is as a practical matter arguing that ALL
non-humans have rights.
|10.19.07 @ 3:40PM|#
If God didn't want us to kill and eat animals, He wouldn't have made them taste like meat.
Stumpy the Broccoli Stem Littl|10.19.07 @ 3:45PM|#
*walking on by. Munching on Bambi jerky*
oh hay hai gaiz. What's the happy-haps?
|10.19.07 @ 3:46PM|#
If God didn't want us to kill and eat animals, He wouldn't have made them taste like meat.
Honestly, I could say the same thing about you.
|10.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
This is a big and ongoing debate within the ethical-eating
community. That's why there are vegetarians, vegans, fruititarians,
and people who are off-the-scale.
However, this line of reasoning is often used to try to divert the
debate from the real and tangible suffering of mammals raised for
food. Nice try.
Tonio, I get it. Your sacred cow got gored. Wah!
H&R specializes in goring sacred cows. Be a big boy now and
wipe your eyes.
Scooby|10.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Tonio: However, this line of reasoning is often used to try
to divert the debate from the real and tangible suffering of
mammals raised for food. Nice try.
Bullshit. I know there are some who restrict their concern to the
suffering of mammals (i.e., "vegetarians" who eat fish and
chicken), but they tend to be looked down upon by the "ethical
eating community." Most vegans set the bar quite a bit lower- honey
being unacceptable because it involves exploiting the involuntary
labor of social insects.
It doesn't take much reductio to get from bees to mosquitos and
earthworms.
Extending rights to plants, on the other hand, is obviously
diversion from the debate.
If you want the debate to be about the suffering of mammals raised
as food, please tell your friends to shut up about fishing, factory
chicken farms, and hunting, since they are just trying to divert
the debate from its proper subject.
|10.19.07 @ 4:01PM|#
The vast majority of my "stupid college oratory" involved alcohol and/or the fairer sex. I can only hope that is the case here.
Sam Grove|10.19.07 @ 4:02PM|#
If god didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out
of meat?
Homer
|10.19.07 @ 4:11PM|#
The bible says man has dominion over all the creatures of the
earth.
I am unfamiliar with all other godheads and their belief
systems.
If a we are unbelievers then what is moral is a personal choice
influenced by many many things. All opinions become valid in this
light and some would suggest that amoebas have the same rights as
cows or chickens or humans.
Morality without Divine influence is simply a matter of personal
opinion.
|10.19.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Sam Grove,
Thank you for the reference. I knew I heard that from someone much
wiser than myself, ben
|10.19.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Syloson,
So, is your point that because some* libertarians were a little
over the top regarding Ayn Rand in their youth that this somehow
makes the criticism of this article unfair? No. My point was
more along the lines of "teenagers who discover an exciting new
political philosophy are silly, but this is hardly news."
JN, I didn't explain suppy and demand. I explained a little bit
about the turkey business. But, yeah, it was awesome.
Max,
Do halal and kosher laws get into the humane treatment of the
animal while it is being raised? Could a factory
farm/feedlot-raised cow produce kosher meat if it was slaughtered
correctly?
prolefeed, I didn't bring up any college freshmen's writings. Swing
and a miss!
But I did not know that turkeys get cheaper at Thanksgiving. I was
unaware supermarkets marketed them that way - I just assumed it
worked the same way as roses at Valentine's Day. Interesting.
|10.19.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I agree with Fluffy:
If you're going to argue that human beings have moral
obligations to entities other than other human beings, you have to
be prepared to deal with the reductio where people start to ask
about earthworms, mosquitos, and plants. Sorry.
Fortunately, it has a very easy answer: vegetables are incapable of
experienceing pain, fear, or agony, where animals can experience
all of these things. Therefore, while the might or might not be a
moral imperitive to avoid causing unnecessary fear, pain, and
misery to animals, there cannot be such an imperitive in regards to
plants.
MattXIV|10.19.07 @ 4:17PM|#
KMW,
Slow news day, eh?
Others,
I think the observation that this rhetoric resembles pro-life
rhetoric is dead on and it's largely pointless to argue with them
for the same reasons. They draw a more or less arbitrary lines to
define moral community and argue for them largely by appeals to
disgust or simple assertion. If you don't share their premises, you
won't convince them and they won't convince you.
iih|10.19.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Do halal and kosher laws get into the humane treatment of
the animal while it is being raised?
An animal "inhumanely" slaughtered is not halal (and I do not think
kosher either). "Humane" slaughtering means a quick and as
instantaneous as possibly can (e.g., do not electrocute, but use as
sharp a knife as one can possible find, have a firm hand,
etc).
What is more important, is it tasty? Mmmm...
iih|10.19.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Do halal and kosher laws get into the humane treatment of
the animal while it is being raised?
According to Islamic theology, a pious (wo)man can go to hell for
inhumane treatment of animals.
MattXIV|10.19.07 @ 4:24PM|#
You're all avoiding the real question here:
Would it be ethical to kill and eat Che Guevara?
|10.19.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Would it be ethical to kill and eat Che Guevara?
Yes, but you have to wash him real good first.
|10.19.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"Leaving aside animal rights, the "pure libertarian viewpoint"
only necessitates opposition to animal welfare that is
coerced."
That's crazy talk. This is a real problem for libertarianism. It
has a similar problem with abortion. Animal rights folks and
pro-life folks see animal and fetus killing as akin to a heinous
crime, and if they are right then libertarianism should add them to
slavery and assault as things we would be willing to let a state
prohibit. When it come to property rights (like tresspassing) you
guys don't mind coercion.
I'm glad brother ben joined us because I've yet to be in a H&R
animal rights discussion that had a better answer to why animals
don't get moral weight than "cuz the Bible told me so." Anything
you can say about most animals we eat you could say about infants,
retarded folks or senile folks.
iih|10.19.07 @ 4:33PM|#
MNG:
infants, retarded folks or senile folks
Except that these are not (naturally) edible (except in some tribal
cultures).
Episiarch|10.19.07 @ 4:39PM|#
MNG, you get so cutely hysterical whenever the whole animal
rights subject comes up.
Animals don't get moral weight (technically) because they are not
capable of sentience. Infants are. Retarded folks are. Senile folks
were and are.
Different people who subscribe to this idea will have different
levels of concern about animal suffering.
Humans are currently the only sentient animals, so we are the only
ones with this special status. However, we would give moral weight
to sentient aliens if we ever encountered them.
|10.19.07 @ 4:40PM|#
How do you determine sentience, and why don't grey parrots and gorillas make the mark?
iih|10.19.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Religion is good after all. It answers all these questions for us. Why the trouble?
|10.19.07 @ 4:42PM|#
It always takes a few minutes for animal rights discussion here
to elicite the "I'm gonna eat me a juicy deer" response.
Considering, as I said above, that the general public finds
libertarians to be strange oddballs as much as it does vegetarians,
I then submit this response to that juvenile line of
reasoning:
Hey, joe, let's go get in our tariff protected cars and drive on
our government roads paid for with money we've stolen from H&R
readers and pick up our mail from the US post office. Maybe my
student loan subsidized with taxpayer money will be in the box?
|10.19.07 @ 4:43PM|#
joe,
(1) The ability to make and use advanced weapons.
(2) Because they are unarmed.
|10.19.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Episariach-so people in a terminal coma are fair game? And severly retarded folks (many are clearly less sentient than my beagle)? And terminally ill infants who will never make it past 6 months? I get to eat them? Think harder buddy.
|10.19.07 @ 4:46PM|#
And why the fact that someone "used to be" sentient gives them
moral weight will need some 'splaining.
You should give up the gig now and just say "jesus, I just eat meat
cuz everyone around me always has, I've never thought about it
much." Cuz I'm betting that's closer to the truth...
iih|10.19.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Episariach-so people in a terminal coma are fair game? And
severly retarded folks (many are clearly less sentient than my
beagle)? And terminally ill infants who will never make it past 6
months? I get to eat them? Think harder buddy.
Because of apathy towards retarded folk, infants, and the
elderly?
iih|10.19.07 @ 4:55PM|#
MNG:
Could there be an argument revolving around natural "urges" in
selecting of what we eat? We just feel like it to eat beef but not
retarded folk, infants, and the elderly. If you do not feel like
eating meaty stuff, feel free not to eat them. Meanwhile, I will.
You know that kind of argument. Now the vegetarian folk may decide
to fight me and defend the poor chicken, but then they
have to ask themselves: Are they willing to kill another human
being over a chicken? The moral question is now in their field.
Episiarch|10.19.07 @ 4:59PM|#
First of all, don't be dense. There is a trememdous cultural
taboo against cannibalism, so discussions about eating other humans
are just exercises. Do I think it all right to eat an infant that
will die at 6 months? Sure, as long as you wait for it to die and
don't kill it. But practically, we won't be eating each other
anytime soon.
Other than that, I will eat the things that humans evolved to
eat.
jesus, I just eat meat cuz everyone around me always has, I've
never thought about it much
Since this is your hobby horse, and since you seem to feel you are
some sort of revolutionary thinker for ZOMG questioning eating
meat, I will say this: I eat meat because that's one of the things
humans eat. I LIKE it, a lot. I like sex, too, and don't question
the morality of that either.
You remind me of a Catholic agonizing over his sexual urges.
|10.19.07 @ 5:00PM|#
But I did not know that turkeys get cheaper at Thanksgiving.
I was unaware supermarkets marketed them that way - I just assumed
it worked the same way as roses at Valentine's Day.
Interesting.
joe, I think that the reason for the different marketing approaches
to turkeys versus roses is that there aren't many add-on sales to
Valentine roses, other than relatively cheap cards, so you have to
make a profit off the roses by taking advantage of the tight supply
relative to demand. Whereas, most people buy all kinds of trimmings
with their turkey, so the store can price the turkey at or below
cost and get their profit off all the trimmings. Also, Valentine's
day is a one-shot deal, and roses are highly perishable, so the
demand curve is pushed up on that one day, leading to higher
prices. OTOH, people have more flexibility about when to start
loading up on Thanksgiving supplies, spreading out the demand and
making price spikes less sustainable.
SIV|10.19.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Animal rights thread...Hey what did I miss?
Anything you can say about most animals we eat you could say
about infants, retarded folks or senile folks
People aren't food MNG, that is a universal taboo.Much more so than
incest or murder.
Although humans are animals we are of an exceptional sort. Animals
are property because they aren't in the same category as us-not
because of the lack of mental abilities and self -awareness they
might share with immature and defective humans.Before you try and
drag in racial categories we didn't eat African slaves-in fact we
converted them to Christianity.No one I'm aware of is trying to
save chicken, cow,sheep and pig souls.
|10.19.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Morality without Divine influence is simply a matter of
personal opinion.
brotherben, The following is why my personal opinion on morality is
superior to "divine influence".
1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly
destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.(King
James Version)
I just love those slaughter your neighbor passages!
|10.19.07 @ 5:06PM|#
SIV,I am trying to save my mother in laws' soul and she two of the four you mentioned.
|10.19.07 @ 5:07PM|#
I'm not sure there's a canned libertarian response to the animal
rights issue, regardless of what this small sample of libertarians
has to say. I'm a meat eater, but I can certainly appreciate
arguments about animal cruelty. And munching on say, a chimpanzee,
would bother me.
Maybe we just need tasty synthetics to end this debate, once and
for all.
|10.19.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Maybe we just need tasty synthetics to end this debate, once
and for all.
Pro Libertate,
Now I've got to introduce meat
without animals into the discussion.
Hmmm.
|10.19.07 @ 5:19PM|#
I am a hunter and believe animals deserve moral consideration. I
eat meat, yes, and I enjoy it greatly. I mostly eat meat from
animals I kill. I make every effort to kill quickly and cleanly. I
do not torture animals, at least as defined by the wanton
imposition of pain.
Animals do not have rights, but they deserve moral consideration.
One can argue a person in a persistant vegetative state has
"rights," but personally, I think its another case of moral
consideration. Frankly, I think a decent case can be made that
keeping them alive (at least biologically) is more cruel than
allowing them to die.
Eating human flesh is a taboo (at least in most societies). Are
there circumstances where I would resort to cannabalism to survive.
Yes, but I would not kill another person. If they died and the
flesh was available, my instinct for survival would outweigh my
sense of violating a moral taboo... particularly with some fava
beans and nice chianti.
MattXIV|10.19.07 @ 5:20PM|#
[S]o people in a terminal coma are fair game?
So, are you against harvesting the organs of people in terminal
comas?
|10.19.07 @ 5:23PM|#
J sub D,
What is the basis for your morality?
My culture, my upbringing, introspection, deduction and
extrapolation. I was raised a papist, I'm sure it has some
influence. Probably not too much.
BTW, the "holy book" is full of that kind of stuff, isn't it?
MattXIV|10.19.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Are they willing to kill another human being over a chicken?
Che-gans are.
Save a chicken. Eat a commie!
|10.19.07 @ 5:23PM|#
That makes sense, prolefeed.
It's not economics I'm ignorant about. It's grocery stores.
|10.19.07 @ 5:24PM|#
That's crazy talk. This is a real problem for libertarianism. ...Animal rights folks and pro-life folks see animal and fetus killing as akin to a heinous crime, and if they are right then libertarianism should add them to slavery and assault as things we would be willing to let a state prohibit.
MNG,
Nice try on attempting to twist what I said. Let's try
again:
You are correct that "animal rights" are a completely different set of issues than "animal welfare", the former being pretty complex but predicated on the question, "do we have the right to own animals of another species?"
Leaving aside animal rights, the "pure libertarian viewpoint" only necessitates opposition to animal welfare that is coerced.
IOW, I was not making a libertarian argument for or against "animal
rights" but against government(elected, religious or other) edicts
regarding the "humane" treatment of animals.
The notion of "animal rights" is, as you noted, a very emotional
and ultimately untestable subject akin to abortion. It is also a
subject for which I have no intention of engaging on this forum.
Like shouting into a hurricane, I know futility when I experience
it and arguing with "animal rights" or "anti-abortion" activists is
the epitome of futility.
|10.19.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Animals do not have rights, but they deserve moral
consideration.
Well said. Dogs don't have rights, they're property. Still, I'm
happy Michael Vick is going to do time. Fuckin' A-hole.
|10.19.07 @ 5:35PM|#
I'm well aware that my 5:25 pm post is inconsistent with libertarian principles. I'll go do penance now.
|10.19.07 @ 5:36PM|#
J sub D,
Yes, the book is chock full of such unpleasantness. History is that
way.
If we all based our morality as you do then there can be no such
thing as immorality. Just a difference of opinions. Nobody is wrong
if everybody is right.
Joe, btw, the rose wholesalers triple the price 10-12 days before
valentines day. florists have to pay the price as they cant order
earlier than that. (wife is a florist)
|10.19.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Distorted notions of capitalism have been the impetus for
our complete apathy towards the issue of animal rights.
I thought communists didn't eat meat because their stores were
always out of it not because it was unethical. I guess you learn
something everyday.
SA Miller|10.19.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Why am I supposed to care what some freshman is writing in the Columbia Spectator?
|10.19.07 @ 5:57PM|#
SIV and Episariach must be cultural relativists, they seem to
think that arguing that a practice is held by a culture to be wrong
(taboo) that this is enough on the subject. We are talking about
why it's wrong to eat people, and if that is applicable to animals.
When talking about why it is wrong to eat humans you can't win by
saying "most people think it is wrong" or "every culture is against
it" unless you are arguing that a culture thinking something is
morally right is all we need to figure out what in fact is morally
right.
btw-cultures also pretty universally restrict markets, so that must
be moral too, eh?
Episarich-you're funny. I don't do much agonizing over animal
rights. In your mind everyone who accepts animal rights arguments
as compelling simply have to be granola eating hemp wearing hippies
anguishing over a moths death. In reality the arguments are just
powerful and I realize that.
|10.19.07 @ 5:58PM|#
"The notion of "animal rights" is, as you noted, a very emotional and ultimately untestable subject akin to abortion. " Non-agression is testable? WHo knew!
|10.19.07 @ 5:58PM|#
If a we are unbelievers then what is moral is a personal
choice influenced by many many things. All opinions become valid in
this light and some would suggest that amoebas have the same rights
as cows or chickens or humans.
Morality without Divine influence is simply a matter of personal
opinion.
So is morality with Divine influence a matter of personal
opinion! It has to be based on someone's opinion and/or
interpretation of what a deity said - or what someone who wrote a
book about it said.
If you believe what the Bible says, or the Koran, or any other
sacred text - or you believe what someone says they say - then it
is your "personal opinion" as to its validity. You can
abdicate the responsibility to think, but you can not believe
without it being your belief.
MattXIV|10.19.07 @ 6:06PM|#
I thought communists didn't eat meat because their stores were always out of it not because it was unethical. I guess you learn something everyday.
Yes, and like most of the other problems with communism, it can be
solved by adhering to a strict Che-gan diet.
|10.19.07 @ 6:07PM|#
If we all based our morality as you do then there can be no
such thing as immorality. Just a difference of opinions. Nobody is
wrong if everybody is right.
And you propose basing it on the writings of superstitious bronze
age goat herders with a historically unsubstantiated update from
Roman occupied Judea (iron age)?
|10.19.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Knowledge of truth is not an abdication of thought. Do you believe in gravity? Is that an abdication of thought on your part?
|10.19.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Or we could let the Govt dictate our morals.
Or we could let everyone including John Coeuy write their own
rules?
A society without a common foundation for moral behaviour is doomed
to failure.
|10.19.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Knowledge of truth is not an abdication of thought. Do you
believe in gravity? Is that an abdication of thought on your
part?
I'm unsure of what your asking here. But I'll take a stab at it
anyway. My belief in a scientific theory (look up what a theory is
in the world of science) doesn't affect its correctness or
usefulness. Likewise any belief in a deity has no bearing on the
existence of said deity. Evidence, brotherben, evidence. That's all
I ask.
I'm not going to channge your mind, you certainly aren't going to
change mine. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
|10.19.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Knowledge of truth is not an abdication of thought. Do you
believe in gravity? Is that an abdication of thought on your
part?
It could be, if I accepted it uncritically. But my point is whether
I accept it critically or uncritically, it is me doing the
accepting of it - or anyone else. A person can not escape the fact
that he or she is the final arbiter of what is true or untrue,
valid or invalid, believed or not believed. One can argue about the
proper basis for one's conclusions, but one cannot escape choice -
even a refusal to choose is a choice.
|10.19.07 @ 8:38PM|#
I believe that cannibalism is taboo in modern societies (until
recently, still practiced in New Guinea highlands and a few
isolated places) because legalizing it would impede population
growth in the offending culture, leading to them being taken over
by societies with the taboo. Same deal with taboos for murder, etc.
-- a Darwinian struggle among diverse cultural practices leading to
the domination of the most efficient one from the perspective of
population growth. Encoding this knowledge in religious texts is
more of an effect than a cause.
The abortion debate may be slowly settled if people who don't abort
outbreed people who do and become overwhelmingly numerous. This
"winning by outbreeding" thing is more or less explicitly pushed by
the Mormon church, which strongly encourages large families based
on religious ideology, but with the largely unspoken subtext of
ideological domination via population growth.
|10.19.07 @ 8:42PM|#
J sub D writes,
Dogs don't have rights, they're property. Let's poke
around in here a little bit. There's a lot packed in there.
It appears to explain the absence of rights as a result of their
having the moral status "property." But "property" is a human
construct - it explains the relationship of a human to a
thing.
Rights, on the other hand, if you believe in the conceptualization
of them offered in the Declaration of Independence, are endowed by
the Creator, and are inalienable.
So, the status of dogs in terms of having rights would seem to be
prior to their status as property.
IF dogs have rights, then the human construct of making them
property cannot void those rights.
Slaves were property - that is, were described and understood by
human beings as being property - and yet, they still had rights
that we should have been respecting.
|10.19.07 @ 8:47PM|#
prolefeed, are you suggesting that cannibalistic societies
consist of people eating members of their own communities?
I'm pretty sure that virtually all cannibalism (or at least,
virtually all murder cannibalism) above the scale of the lone
psycho - and therefore big enough to influence a society's
long-term prospects - was the consumption of enemies/victims from
other societies.
|10.19.07 @ 9:53PM|#
|10.19.07 @ 9:55PM|#
|10.19.07 @ 10:42PM|#
|10.20.07 @ 5:59AM|#
|10.20.07 @ 1:16PM|#
It appears to explain the absence of rights as a result of
their having the moral status "property." But "property" is a human
construct - it explains the relationship of a human to a
thing.
"Rights" are a human construct.
Rights, on the other hand, if you believe in the
conceptualization of them offered in the Declaration of
Independence, are endowed by the Creator, and are
inalienable.
"Endowed by the Creator" I have a problem with that, being an
atheist and all that entails. It might be more accurate to say
"rights" are defined by a society. In the U.S. women did not have
the right to vote prior to the passage of the nineteenth amendment.
They still don't in some countries.
So, the status of dogs in terms of having rights would seem to
be prior to their status as property.
If you agree with the two prior premises, which I don't.
Slaves were property - that is, were described and understood
by human beings as being property - and yet, they still had rights
that we should have been respecting.
They didn't until the passage of the 13th, 14th, and15th
amendments. Sad but true.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245